Jump to content

odalman

Community Members
  • Content Count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About odalman

  • Rank
    Discens

Recent Profile Visitors

160 profile views
  1. Building placement is frustrating (for me and for people I have watched playing in online videos). The problem is, that as soon as the building preview (which follows the mouse cursor) is moved slightly over an obstacle, it turns red (which means that it is not allowed to place the building there). To fix this, the preview should snap to the closest position next to the obstacle. This should only happen when there is a slight overlap.
  2. Simulation-side short-distance patrolling enables automation of dancing right now. But so would UI-side patrolling, which would not be too difficult to implement, but may require low network latency to work. Of course, automated dancing countermeasures could also be implemented UI-side. But a more appealing fix would be realistic unit movement (acceleration, kinetic energy) in the simulation. I recall someone mentioned testing this, but gave up because it made formations difficult.
  3. I agree that the starting meat animals should be goats, sheep or pigs. That would be a quick and easy fix. Domestic poultry could be something that we just imagine exists at the houses and are below the game's scale of simulation. The chickens could be reused as wild animals in a suitable biome, like the peacocks. It makes more sense to use cavalry to collect wild birds because they are far away and spread out. The actual meat gathering should be equally fast for women and cavalry. The advantage for the cavalry should be the mobility.
  4. It seems like everyone uses cavalry to slaughter the chickens at the civic center. It seems very unrealistic and I wonder if any ancient civilization actually did that? So right now realism in 0 A.D. totally ends at 0 seconds into each game. (Yes, there are plenty of other unrealistic things in the game, but this stands out.) It would seem natural to balance the game so that using the women to slaughter the chickens is the best thing to do. It should be a waste to use a cavalry man for that. He should use his greater speed and ability to kill to hunt larger and more dangerous or difficult-to-hunt animals further away and more spread out, and his strength as a man to handle large animal bodies. Women should be at least as fast as men at handling animals as small as chickens. And their slower walk speed should not be a problem at that distance. How could this be achieved? The idea that I came up with is a more numerically explicit division of labour. The idea behind the game seems to be that men do not really want to do light female work and hence do it slowly while women can not really do heavy work and hence do it slowly. Right now, work rates are set per unit type. I would like to classify tasks numerically instead. An example: picking berries/slaughtering chickens/gardening: 1 % heavy, 99 % light (I imagine the heavy work to be carrying the food baskets that the women have been filling.) So having only women doing such work would be a good choice for a player. collecting meat from larger animals: Numbers depend on animal size. Having cavalry hunting them, driving them towards the nearest dropsite, killing them and collecting the meat would be a good choice for a player. A few women could be sent to help gather the meat if the animal ends up dead close to a dropsite. (Women picking berries should automatically switch over to gathering meat from an animal that is killed nearby, to get the meat before it decays. Then they automatically go back to the berries.) cutting wood: 75 % heavy, 25 % light (I imagine the ligth work to be clearing smaller vegetation that is in the way before cutting the big trees, removing small branches and picking up small pieces.) mining: 90 % heavy, 10 % light (I imagine ligth work to be picking up and sorting smaller pieces as well as carrying water and other supplies to the men.) construction work: Numbers depend on construction material (building with more stone is heavier work than building with wood). Work speed for every unit gathering from a resource site should depend on how well the composition of units gathering from that resource site matches the above numbers. So 9 men and 1 woman on a mine should be better than 10 men while 6 men and 2 women on a tree would be better than 7 men and 1 woman. But since woodcutting is mostly heavy work, having only men on a tree would still be reasonably fast and be the best choice if the location is exposed to raids.
  5. I find this interesting and imagine that it is what I remember from Settlers 3 (there are videos online for the young people). It worked with a lot of units on a Pentium II 400 MHz. Units would automatically step aside if another unit was coming too close (quite realistic). Hope to see this in 0 A.D.
  6. I envision that the user gets as much automation as he wants. If he does nothing at all, his player will be computer controlled. So defaults should be sensible. But the user can turn off particular automation features at different levels and try to manage things better manually. (If the player has turned off for example automatic building placement, the automation could still make suggestions, like "now it seems to be a good idea to build a storehouse here, OK?". Of course the user should be able to turn off suggestions as well.) Whether the workers emerge automatically from a civic center, barracks or the resource camp itself is a detail that could differ between factions. It should be automatic in any case. (It would make sense for the resource camp to provide the necessary housing for the workers associated with it.) I watched all the 0ad videos by Tom on youtube and people seem to like playing the game with citizen solders (and I liked watching such games). The "call to arms" feature would work in the Rock–paper–scissors type of system that is Raiding-turtling-booming. To counter raiding, a player would turtle by setting his most exposed resource camps to request citizen soldiers. To counter turtling, a player would boom by setting his resource camps to request cheaper female citizens. To counter booming, a player would raid. The player also has to consider which mix of soldiers a resource cam should request, depending on which kind of rush might come. This system could provide interesting and challenging games. And as I wrote above, the defaults should be sensible. So the composition of workers requested by a resource camp should be automatically set according to how exposed it seems to be to raids. And of course the user should be able to override this.
  7. An idea for slightly more realism: The player never tells a citizen which tree he should chop. The player associates each citizen with a dropsite. He will go there and deposit his armour and wepon. The dropsite sends its associated citizens to a resource site. The player can tell the dropsite in which proportion it should try to collect the different kinds of resources. Or this could be done on a higher (economy-wide) level and more or less automatic/smart. The dropsite would send its slowest-moving citizens to the closest resource sites and the faster-moving citizens further away. The player can mark resource sites (such as trees) for clearing (to get building space). Then the nearby dropsite(s) will prefer to send their citizens there. Otherwise it will send them to the nearest resource site. The player could also mark areas as forbidden for workers (because of danger). When one of the citizens of a dropsite sees an enemy, he shouts to his colleagues and they all go to the dropsite, leave their resources and get their armour and weapon. (So the dropsite would work like a swedish mobiliseringsförråd during the previous cold war.) Associating a citizen with a dropsite may not have to be done manually. A dropsite could automatically suck in an idle citizen. Although the player could set the number (and maybe type) of citizens that a particular dropsite should have.
  8. I tried to use the mauryan worker elephant and 8 citizen soldiers to form a woodcutting task force on a map with single trees evenly spaced (sahel kind of map). I selected the soldiers and rightclicked on a tree. Then I selected the elephant and G-rightclicked on one of the soldiers. It sort of worked; the elepant followed the workers to the tree, and when it was depleted, to the next tree. However, there were 2 issues: 1. The elephant does not go close enough to the tree, so the soldiers have to carry the wood needlessly far. (If the soldier that the elephant is set to follow happens to go to the far side of the tree to find a place to chop, that will make the elephant go closer.) 2. Eventually the soldiers will disagree which tree to chop next. They will diverge and those that do not agree with the one that has the elephant following him will have to walk furter and further. Any ideas how to make this smarter? Following someone closer is perhaps just a matter of changing a magic number somewhere. Telling a soldier to follow another soldier that is chopping wood just makes the first soldier stand nearby and watch. Maybe follow should be interpreted as "follow and do whatever he does". When selecting the next tree, maybe take the distance to the nearest dropsite into consideration? (Now it just seems to select the closest tree from where the soldier was standing when he chopped the previous tree.)
  9. I implemented that for another game a long time ago.
  10. I thought that it was a faction bonus, like one would get by adding { "Template": "structures/gaul_farmstead" }, to "StartEntities" in gaul.js, but with some suitability calculation behind the placement. But I found no trace of any such thing in svn history. So it seems like Boudica is right. It was the scenario called Deccan Plateau where the players get a free farmstead (and storehouse) regardless of faction. And the faction specific bonus that I remembered might have been that the gauls started with a population cap of 24 instead of 20, like most others, because of the extra buildings.
  11. I thought that I played 0 A.D. some years ago and one of the factions started with an extra building as a bonus (gauls? farmstead?) but I can not find any evidence of it. Was I dreaming?
  12. Thanks @stanislas69 I am currently leaning towards a system based on the Blackbird™ Mainboard (expected late Q1). I expect Raptor Computing Systems to offer the mainboard in a chassis with optional additional components once the board started shipping (like the currently available Talos™ II Lite Base Chassis, which is based on the expensiver and soundless Talos II Lite mainboard). These mainboards are for the POWER9 CPU. Is anyone running 0 A.D. on that?
  13. Is anyone successfully playing 0 A.D. on Librebox? If so, with which display resolution? Is the CPU fast enough? Is the built-in Intel graphic sufficient for rendering? Are 2 cores sufficient for pathfinding of many hundred units? If not, is someone playing 0 A.D. on another freedom and privacy oriented computer?
  14. Firstly, ranged units could have their attack strength decrease towards 0 with distance, so they would have to come closer to be effective. That would simulate missile inaccuracy, but without introducing randomness. Secondly, missiles could have a cost. For example 1 wood.
×
×
  • Create New...